Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!abennett From: abennett@athena.mit.edu (Andrew Bennett) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Apple = avarice ?? Summary: yes. Message-ID: <1990Sep25.193727.16941@athena.mit.edu> Date: 25 Sep 90 19:37:27 GMT References: Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background) Distribution: comp Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 52 In article gow@sakari.mrceg (Ed Gow) writes: > >My question is this, how does the Mac buying public feel about this >sort of business practice? Personally I feel like, to put it bluntly, >they've been bending us over and now they're sticking it to us. Since >there are now many other good GUIs coming out (in spite of Apple >lawyers' best efforts) can they afford this? > In the short run, it will preserve their market share. In the long run, I think they're pulling a 'Detroit' - they'll go on doing what they're doing, oblivious to reality, until one day they'll notice no one is buying their product. They'll then spend all that built up revenue on attempts to regain lost customers, instead of new R&D (Wang is an extreme example). I've been a Mac devotee since 1985. I've owned a 512, 512E, Plus, SE and a Mac II. I helped introduce them into a National Lab in 1986 (they're insanely popular there now), and a startup in 1987. This year, however, was a turning point. Until now, there wasn't really any choice if you wanted a truly friendly OS/GUI. That's all changing. X-Windows/Motif, which is slow & cumbersome, has just been upgraded to v1.1, which is leaner and 30% faster. I see no reason why things won't get better. After all, with multiple workstation vendors all competing with the same basic OS/GUI (and it's beginning to look like things are settling out that way), how else can they stand out in the eyes of the customer? They *have* to get faster & easier to use. Ditto for applications available - hardware vendors will encourage ports to help sell product, and once the first port has been completed, migration to other platforms is fairly quick. That, plus the ever-improving price/performance of workstations means that the Mac isn't as unique as it once was. I believe similar arguments may be made for PC's and PC compatables, except that the time-lag for improvements is longer (i.e. the workstations seem to have major improvements on a yearly basis, while PC's seem to run on a two to three year period - most likely due to the size and inertia of the installed base of platforms). Also, the installed software base is much larger. Today, the Macintosh is *still* your best choice. But in a year? In two? -Drew ---------------------------------------------------- Andrew Bennett abennett@mit.edu MIT Room 11-124H abennett%athena@mitvma.bitnet 77 Massachusetts Ave. Phone: (617) 253-7174 Cambridge, MA 02139 ** All disclaimers apply ** -----------------------------------------------------